>We had instructions for how to pin the site to your home screen, and would explain to users how the website does everything an app can do. Still, constant requests for an app.
This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store.
The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features. They have been dragged down by the subtle artificial friction that makes the UX feel subpar.
This reminds me of my own experience of mobile websites when they first emerged. I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version". Then I learned about responsive web design and it clicked for me. I predict that a similar epiphany will occur among casuals once the active sabotage of web apps stops due to regulations reigning in the anti-competitive business practices of gatekeepers.
I'm sure that some people will still prefer "native" apps for whatever reason. However, if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field, then a lay person wouldn't even be able to differentiate between them. This is even the case today where some developers simply wrap their web app in a WebView and ship it as a "native" app.
> I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version".
It wasn't that long ago that when you used the mobile internet, you would be getting a "fake version" of the site that could render speedily, despite the limited speed of 2G networks.
First it was all about WML[0], which would be processed by a proxy that would deliver the file in a binary format that would be smaller.
And even when mobile phones that could access proper HTML content hit the market, it was often still accessed through the use of an accelerator proxy[1] which would optimize the page (stripping unnecessary parts) that you were trying to access so that it could be downloaded faster.
These technologies are still in use in some places, as I understand it. But it's generally not necessary nowadays for locations with access to 3G or better.
heck, if I use the mobile version of facebook I still get a fake site that won't open direct messages, pushing me to install the messenger app instead. with the desktop version the messages open without any issues.
Exactly, web apps are superior in most ways to mobile apps for the user experience, but only if vendors support the web and stop actively trying to make it like apps are the better option.
The preference for apps is a learned behavior, not something fundamental. The vast majority of people with real understanding would prefer the web
I couldn't agree more. If vendors decided to give the web development the resources it deserves, the experience would turn out vastly superior for the users: no apps to download (browser is usually bundled), well standardized consistent interface where you know what a control does and how does it look like, more control on security and safety, and a lot less resources consumption. Unfortunately heavy advertising, catchy effects, colorful interfaces, and not caring for the web side, convinced most users that the apps approach is the best one, while it's actually the other way around. Apps also give vendors a tool to more easily infiltrate users devices and grab much of their personal data so I guess the motivation to change that is less than nil.
PWAs are only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be. The average local TV news affiliate website spends 5MB-20MB of bandwidth within a minute of downloading 1 page. My last iOS app was only 5MB shipped and only consumes a few KB of bandwidth per session.
There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy (depending on how prevalent analytics/ tracking/ advertising libraries are on native apps).
A well crafted PWA can compete on most features with a well crafted app, but ultimately the App Store review process means native apps have a decently high floor, whereas PWAs have zero floor.
>PWAs are only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be. The average local TV news affiliate website spends 5MB-20MB of bandwidth within a minute of downloading 1 page. My last iOS app was only 5MB shipped and only consumes a few KB of bandwidth per session.
This is a very strange argument to make, the exact same applies to "native" apps. Every app "is only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be". There are countless of "native" apps on iOS like "wallpaper" apps that drain the battery, consume absurd bandwidth and have outright scammy business models which App Store "review" just lets pass (because Apple gets a cut of the scam!).
>There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy (depending on how prevalent analytics/ tracking/ advertising libraries are on native apps).
Power efficiency? If JIT (Just-In-Time) compilation were universally allowed for all web browsers and PWAs on iOS, it would be a complete game-changer, dramatically closing the performance and power efficiency gap with native apps. (see above why Apple actively sabotages PWAs)
Security and Privacy? PWAs benefit from the OS's sandbox and its own sandbox
>A well crafted PWA can compete on most features with a well crafted app, but ultimately the App Store review process means native apps have a decently high floor, whereas PWAs have zero floor.
You can't even compare the App Store review to someone actively going on e.g. Pinterest.com and clicking on install PWA. The user has already reviewed and decided that it's an app worth installing.
Finally, the App Store "review process" is a bad joke, not only because it is slow, inefficient and often arbitrary, but because it fails to even filter out the most obvious of scams:
"The widely used Apple App Store has become a minefield of scam apps. While several scam apps have been removed by Apple, it seems they’ve only acted when directly called out on social media. Despite the removal of some scam apps, Apple has not yet acted to ban the guilty app developers from the app store."
> This is a very strange argument to make, the exact same applies to "native" apps.
Which is the point I was making. The parent and gp were making the argument that PWAs were positively better than native apps, which I was pushing back on.
None of your links disagree with my points, except the last one which suffers from survivor bias.
You made factually incorrect claims that were debunked, like this:
> There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy...
> There isn't just Apple, there's also Google which is a big promoter of PWA's, and in fact they popularized the term.
Google is the primary champion of PWAs, they have a vested interest in its success. The reason I focused on Apple is because its actions are one of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat that is PWA. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense of its walled garden that makes maximum taxation possible.
>PWA's just never took off.
That's just the lazy manufactured and false narrative that I've already thoroughly debunked. I'm not going to repeat it, since you would just ignore it again.
>I’m building a PWA right now in the drone automation space. I can feel the sparsity of the ecosystem.
What are you talking about? The ecosystem of the web is VASTLY SUPERIOR to anything else. You're just desperately trying to score a point where the is none to score. You don't have to bend over backwards in defense of gatekeepers like Apple (unless you are a massive shareholder)
>A lot of people following this discussion are all devs in the web space.
I am a web dev myself. I actually started out as a software engineer by making iOS apps.
>However, your prejudice for people has already sealed the future of your discussion, regardless of whether your prejudice is correct.
You're projecting, since I've zero prejudice that's why I made arguments based on concrete evidence and consistently backed up my claims.
By saying we're all web devs here, I mean you should've already expected that we have an impression of job posts, Reddit, Hacker News, Google Search¹ trends, Github ecosystem, or even npm download trends. We start the argument there.
> That's just the lazy manufactured and false narrative that I've already thoroughly debunked. I'm not going to repeat it, since you would just ignore it again.
But of course you've brought nothing of the like to this discussion, so I don't know wtf you're thinking when you say you've brought the "thorough" debunking. I looked over your discussion history just to be sure I didn't miss anything because there's the implication of another post somewhere else. There's nothing to be missed, everyone is free to look at your history and your concept of thorough analysis.²
I bring up Google because I care about Android. PWAs absolutely could have a chance to win in Android land over Kotlin, React Native, or Flutter. And now Google just talks about it less and less.
>By saying we're all web devs here, I mean you should've already expected that we have an impression of job posts, Reddit, Hacker News, Google Search¹ trends, Github ecosystem, or even npm download trends. We start the argument there.
I can't tell if you're just accidentally incoherent or if you're just using some generated slop that makes no sense in the flow of the discussion. You claimed that the web ecosystem is "sparse", it's not. The ecosystem of the web is vastly superior to anything else. I don't see how your new twist makes any sense in that context.
>But of course you've brought nothing of the like to this discussion, so I don't know wtf you're thinking when you say you've brought the "thorough" debunking. I looked over your discussion history just to be sure I didn't miss anything because there's the implication of another post somewhere else. There's nothing to be missed, everyone is free to look at your history and your concept of thorough analysis.
I really have no interest in entertaining your gaslighting, the evidence is indeed in my history for everybody to look at, so you must be putting in extra effort of upholding your rhetoric and the resulting cognitive dissonance:
>I bring up Google because I care about Android. PWAs absolutely could have a chance to win in Android land over Kotlin, React Native, or Flutter. And now Google just talks about it less and less.
I swear your whole post is so contradictory and strangely written that it feels like generated by an llm that couldn't get a proper grip on the discussion. Since your initial comment was peak zero effort comment that just stated something everybody is already aware of and concluded with an unsubstantiated claim that had just been properly refuted.
Ok, my apologies, it really doesn't show up in your history. Your user page doesn't show anything fresher than 16 hours. Next time I should scrape the page more carefully to check for your replies in other threads.
However, I looked through all the posts you just linked. I still have nothing quantitative on whether "PWAs never took off". It's so much analysis on Apple.
> There isn't just Apple, there's also Google which is a big promoter of PWA's, and in fact they popularized the term. PWA's just never took off.
I just want to know what's popular, and I care about Android. You can care about why Apple is the reason everything is happening.
> That's just the lazy manufactured and false narrative that I've already thoroughly debunked. I'm not going to repeat it, since you would just ignore it again.
This is how you replied to me. You say "ignore it again" but this is the first time we spoke and all I can see is up-thread. That's what I mean by prejudice.
>However, I looked through all the posts you just linked. I still have nothing quantitative on whether "PWAs never took off". It's so much analysis on Apple.
"Nothing quantitative"? You either dont know what that word means or you're unable to grasp what you're reading. I've explained in great detail why PWAs couldn't live up to their potential. The reason why there is "so much analysis on Apple" is because they, as a dominant gatekeeper, have actively engaged in sabotage of PWAs in defense of their App Store by treating PWAs as an existential threat. (See? You're making me repeat myself again, because you either refuse to reflect on what you're actually reading or you are simply not able to connect the dots and realize that i've already answered your question)
>> That's just the lazy manufactured and false narrative that I've already thoroughly debunked. I'm not going to repeat it, since you would just ignore it again.
>This is how you replied to me. You say "ignore it again" but this is the first time we spoke and all I can see is up-thread. That's what I mean by prejudice.
I said that "you would ignore it again" (which you have just done btw) precisely because that's not the "first time we spoke", your comment was in response to my comment and that comment of mine already explained that Apple sabotaged PWAs. You simply ignored that and baselessly claimed that "PWAs 'just' didn't take off" with no effort to substantiate your claim whatsoever. So it's not me being "prejudiced", it's an objective prediction based on your behavior which you have just proven, my prediction was spot on.
I use PWAs for my home websites (things like calendars and thermostat) running on tablets. They're a bit awkward, or I'm just ignorant of The Correct Way. I have to set metadata in a file for some reason I don't understand (most importantly, it must have a dedicated icon to display because ???). Then whenever tablet is restarted, I have to tap the website icon to launch it, then push up from bottom of screen to top and hold it up to bring up whatever Android calls the app manager, and then I tap and hold the window of my app and tap to pin it. -and if Android decides to reboot for whatever reason, I must do this again.
-But it's less pain than trying to turn a generic Android tablet into something more like a kiosk, best I can tell (there are third-party apps that do this, which survives reboots, I'm led to believe, but I'd rather not mess with third-party stuff). I previously made Android apps in Java for the tablets, and while I enjoyed the fragment system it uses, the permissions handling was always a nightmare whenever I wanted to do something neat or experimental -- TTS and mic listening in a PWA makes me much less frustrated than trying to do it via native app (which seems backwards to me), and I can still use the website on any non-Android device.
Whereas on Mac, Meta are keeping their native app presumably because they can't be in the Mac app store with just a web wrapper
But maybe I've just got the exact delusion youre talking about in that I view the app as having more functionality. Maybe they need to free web apps to be on a level playing field as you say
A native app has access to OS information for the same kind of fingerprinting as with browsers, except with more bits of information. The reason, for example, iOS has the “ask app not to track” button is because the tracking could still happen, even more comprehensively than in a browser. Not exactly sure about macOS but I don’t see why it would be different.
Meta is keeping their apps as native presumably because native apps make better spyware. I think they literally do not have any other reason; if web apps made better spyware, Meta would push people to use their web apps, simple as. Meta is a spyware company. Technical decisions about deploying/developing their spyware will be informed primarily by their desire to make it more effective as such.
The App Store is the graphical package manager interface. Or in the case of apps that haven't published, the Finder/Applications folder itself. It makes a lot of sense, similar to the way GoboLinux stashed packages in its new world filesystem hierarchy. One folder, one package.
You do not need a new filesystem hierarchy for it. I have a "one folder one package" kind of setup (among others), e.g. packages are at ~/.local/pkg and I have them symlinked from there to ~/.local. It works for many programs. I use "zpkg", but you could use "GNU stow", too.
> This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store.
If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few).
If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from making a smooth fast web app.
And yet here we are.
> if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field
They already are competing on a level playing field. It's not "lack of NFC" or "lack of Bluetooth" or "lack of <another moving goalpost>" that prevent you from having good web apps.
personally i’ve also seen dev orgs push hard for native apps because they believe it’s better for their skill sets and their future professional prospects snd current comp…
>If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few).
This statement alone is evidence that you didn't understand the crux of the issue. You are also confusing cause and effect. I clearly explained the root causes for that. The reason there are not more web apps is not that they aren't "good" - what does that even mean? what is the criterion for "good" here? If you say that it's because they lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights. Be specific, why are they not "good"? There wouldn't be coincidentally a mysterious opposing force that actively prevents developers from improving those aspects, right?
>There are none (or very, very, very few).
X (Twitter) - has PWA
Pinterest - has PWA
Spotify - has PWA
Uber - Hybrid
Starbucks - has PWA
Again, you're confusing cause and effect. It's like actively sabotaging a runner and saying: "See? that runner sucks!!" - Yeah because that runner is being actively sabotaged.
You're completely ignoring all the evidence and simply claiming that they are unpopular because they are not "good" when in reality they are unpopular because they have been sabotaged to prevent them from challenging the gatekeeper's taxation funnels.
>If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from making a smooth fast web app.
That's not even a coherent argument. Gatekeepers can sabotage competitors in many subtle ways to make the user experience subpar, it's not a 1-dimensional game where only feature parity can be weaponized. It's clear that you are actively refusing to understand the points being made. There is also documented evidence that Apple consistently engaged in practices that made any competing platform a worse experience. Gatekeepers have a conflict of interest and they consistently act in a manner that makes that bias glaring. Gatekeepers are also not morons, they know that it doesn't take much to introduce artificial friction while also maintaining plausible deniability. e.g. see court documents where Apple's engineers admit that they strategically use "scare screens" and that their managers would "definitely like that".
>They already are competing on a level playing field. It's not "lack of NFC" or "lack of Bluetooth" or "lack of <another moving goalpost>" that prevent you from having good web apps.
That's factually incorrect. As previously stated, it's not just a 1-dimensional form of sabotage where only feature parity is being weaponized but any form of artificially introduced friction, while being able to maintain plausible deniability - any of that will get the job done of shutting down any threat to the gatekeeper's taxation funnel. Furthermore, as open-web-advocacy.org states:
- #AppleBrowserBan
Apple's ban of third party browsers on iOS is deeply anti-competitive, starves the Safari/WebKit team of funding and has stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps from taking off on mobile. (https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban...)
-Deep System Integration
Web Apps need to become just Apps. Apps built with the free and open web need equal treatment and integration. Closed and heavily taxed proprietary ecosystems should not receive any preference.
- Web App Equality
All artifical barriers placed by gatekeepers must be removed. Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases.
> Web Apps need to become just Apps. Apps built with the free and open web need equal treatment and integration. Closed and heavily taxed proprietary ecosystems should not receive any preference.
That basically already exists on the desktop in the form of Electron apps. Those apps are universally hated because of it.
Web technology is not suitable for making applications. It was designed to format text documents and that's all it's really good at. That's why we have the web-framework-of-the-week problem, everyone is desperately trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Web apps are janky, fragile and feel out of place on every OS. It's a 'one size fits no one' solution.
>That basically already exists on the desktop in the form of Electron apps. Those apps are universally hated because of it.
Discord and Visual Studio Code are among the most popular apps on mac, those are electron apps. None of that is relevant to the core issue either way. It's not up to Apple to decide any of that, that's what the market and regulators are for. Apple uses and pushes self-serving and false narratives as pretext to engage in anti-competitive business practices.
>Web technology is not suitable for making applications. It was designed to format text documents and that's all it's really good at.
That statement might have been true in 1995, but today it's categorically false.
> Web apps are janky, fragile and feel out of place on every OS. It's a 'one size fits no one' solution.
I've already debunked this manufactured, reductionist and false narrative above.
You really haven't. You are up and down this thread saying these things, but you haven't already proven them or even addressed them.
You have points, I agree that web technology is well suited in 2025 to make interactive applications. I agree that web apps are being held back from expressing their true potential. And while Electron is largely skewered for being bloated and heavy, the web can be fast and fluid.
But you haven't proven that web apps don't feel janky, fragile, and out of place. Because they just factually do. The native UI elements of each OS that you can tap into from the web is limited, and not enough to create the same UI in a WebView that you can in a native Swift app, for instance. You of course can coerce the web into imitating any appearance you care to recreate, but it won't look that way by default, and it'll now look even more starkly out of place on every other platform besides the single one you targeted. This is all an intentional aspect of the web as a cross-platform platform.
The web's internet-native status means a bad internet connection or a brief crossing through a dead zone will kill almost any web app. Yes, there's strategies around this with web workers nowadays, but those are quite complex to implement for even simple applications and often aren't worth the effort to do anything more than pop up a branded "you're offline" page. An app can be completely cut off from the internet, it doesn't have that base assumption of network connectivity and isn't built from the ground up from network-based parts.
> But you haven't proven that web apps don't feel janky, fragile, and out of place. Because they just factually do. The native UI elements of each OS that you can tap into from the web is limited, and not enough to create the same UI in a WebView that you can in a native Swift app, for instance. You of course can coerce the web into imitating any appearance you care to recreate, but it won't look that way by default, and it'll now look even more starkly out of place on every other platform besides the single one you targeted. This is all an intentional aspect of the web as a cross-platform platform.
This sounds like a you problem. Web frameworks have improved significantly to handle anything way beyond text and that has been the case for a long time. This is really about corporations trying to exert power over the open web by trying to route around it with apps.
You still haven't. The whole point of my comment is that you haven't, and I brought up specific points that remain un-addressed by any of your comments in your thread, despite your insistence. Linking to comments that largely consist of the next layer of "I already addressed your points elsewhere!" is not a response. The world exists beyond Apple, and "Apple decrees it" is not a sufficient to explain much of your claims.
If you don't care to engage with the substance of my points, fine, nobody is owed discussion, but this style of conversation is deeply unproductive and I believe even you are losing track of what you have and haven't said.
>You have points, I agree that web technology is well suited in 2025 to make interactive applications. I agree that web apps are being held back from expressing their true potential. And while Electron is largely skewered for being bloated and heavy, the web can be fast and fluid.
The main topic originated through OP's "why some users demand a 'native' app when the web app should be enough" for which I provided explanations as to why web apps haven't lived up to their potential i.e. conflict of interest and the corresponding sabotage by a gatekeeper in contrast to the manufactured narrative of "they are unpopular because they suck". That's a false narrative which I've explained in many comments:
- "A Progressive Web App, if allowed to reach its full, un-sabotaged potential, is the technological manifestation of the Digital Markets Act's goals. So it would be utterly absurd for Apple to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting the DMA, just to let PWAs pass which achieves the exact same goals."
- "The reason I focused on Apple is because its actions are one of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat that is PWA. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense of its walled garden that makes maximum taxation possible."
Since you've stated that "I agree that web apps are being held back from expressing their true potential" you confirmed my thesis. That's why I stated: "I already responded to any of your points that are RELEVANT to the CORE DISCUSSION"
>But you haven't proven that web apps don't feel janky, fragile, and out of place.
That's not even part of the core issue and it has still been explained in my post anyway, which you even confirmed by saying "I agree that web apps are being held back from expressing their true potential" and is also expressed here:
- Apple's ban of third party browsers on iOS is deeply anti-competitive, STARVES the Safari/WebKit team of funding and has STALLED innovation for the past 10 YEARS and PREVENTED Web Apps from taking off on mobile. (https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban...)
-Deep System Integration
Web Apps need to become just Apps. Apps built with the free and open web need equal treatment and integration. Closed and heavily taxed proprietary ecosystems should not receive any preference.
- Web App Equality
All artificial barriers placed by gatekeepers must be removed. Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases.
These are all factors that have already been mentioned and they fix all the real issues that are not the product of active sabotage.
Furthermore, I'm using many web apps like Discord and Visual Studio Code and they do not feel janky, fragile or out of place, that's your subjective perception. And even if that were an objective fact, which they are not, it would still not be relevant to the core discussion since they are not inherent to the technology but product-management related trade-offs that can be improved and fixed.
>The web's internet-native status means a bad internet connection or a brief crossing through a dead zone will kill almost any web app. Yes, there's strategies around this with web workers nowadays, but those are quite complex to implement for even simple applications and often aren't worth the effort to do anything more than pop up a branded "you're offline" page.
Your first claim is just factually wrong, but you admit that in the following statement which contains another claim that is also wrong. Those are exactly the kind of problems that PWAs solve and the user experience in that regard has been steadily improving (see also https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first )
>An app can be completely cut off from the internet, it doesn't have that base assumption of network connectivity and isn't built from the ground up from network-based parts.
That's just straight up nonsense. Any native or web app that relies on internet connectivity will be equally affected. Any native or web app developed with a local-first or local-only approach will work perfectly fine without internet. You clearly have outdated knowledge on the matter. (see https://whatpwacando.today)
So I really had addressed your points that were relevant to the core issue, but you just wanted to nitpick details that had already been partially or fully addressed and are also insignificant in the bigger picture of the topic and technological progress in general. Those ones you listed are based on your subjective experience, your outdated knowledge on the tech or simply a transitory state of software that can be easily improved since they are not an inherent technological limitation.
>Ah, yes, the conversation gets quite tidy and easy for you to manage if you slather everything with a layer of "that's subjective!" "that's not core!" "that's not true in a complex edge case that's inconvenient for multi-page PWAs to set up and is largely if not entirely unused for anything but branded 'no connection' pages out in the wild!"
You claimed that web apps feel "janky, fragile and out of place" which many people, including myself, don't agree with. So how are you whining about us saying "that's subjective!"? It just factually is. Web Apps like Discord or Visual Studio Code could have never ever become such popular apps if your subjective experience were the dominant perspective, but it's not. Many of the criticisms are completely outdated, the most prominent of which seems to be the file size of the resulting app. For me that's simply irrelevant, because disk space is cheap.
>I largely agree with you, dude. You yourself briefly recognize that and appear to try to hold that against me for some reason. But your blindness to what you consider non-core or what you consider a subjective non-issue will make you a less effective advocate.
You agreed with my thesis and I didn't bring that up to "hold it against you" but to make you understand that you're arguing insignificant details now that are not inherent technological limitations which derail the conversation and lead to exactly this kind of redundant never ending unproductive back and forth....
>'m not going to go through it point by point because I can't. You ignored and hand-waved away the things I care about and was interested in discussing for a hand-wavy future that doesn't exist and we have no clear path to.
No you can't go through it point by point because I supposedly "ignored or have-waved" anything, but the opposite - I've systematically addressed every single of your claims, most of which, were either subjective opinions not shared by others or outright false claims based on outdated knowledge.
>We don't have deep system integration. We don't have native UI elements on the web. We don't have many things, and while Electron is clearly suitable for many purposes, it is not the web platform and is part of what's keeping it from reaching its full potential.
Why are you repeating stuff like you are the one who just discovered them, when you are literally just regurgitating points that i've already listed in my original posts from a day ago.
>The web's incredibly lightweight, flexible, and powerful! But we can't talk about the problems and work to get a better future if we just ignore them.
Nothing has been ignored, I've listed all the issues and also addressed all your points. The issue is that you've derailed the conversation by nitpicking insignificant details that are not inherent technological limitations but choices made by apps and their product-management which are trade-offs based on cost/time/benefit.
I understand where you're coming from, but then I think about my daily work.
All of my documents, my spreadsheets, email, chat, and video calling is all done from my browser. I keep Emacs open for scratch just because I can't quit Emacs and I have a terminal open to run some servers. And this has been my working model for at least the last five to six years.
What's remarkable about it is that web apps are doing almost all of the heavy lifting of my work every day. I thought this was worth noting in the context of your comment that web technology is not suitable for making applications.
> I gather most people are just using the apps and have no idea how they’re built.
They may have no idea how they are built, but they do notice how janky and out of place they are. Take for example Microsoft Teams, have you ever met anyone who actually likes that app? It's insane that a simple chat app uses well over a gigabyte of RAM.
It's absurd that one of the biggest software companies in the world can't seem to produce a sleek, native app. It's purely a cost saving measure. They decided mediocrity is good enough for them and they get away with it because the people making the purchase decisions are not the people who have to use it daily.
I hate teams as much as anyone but it seems a bit reductive to call it a simple chat app. It certainly doesn't need to take 1GB of RAM, but it's more complex than say, AIM or IRC are.
Teams is one of the worst apps I ever had the misfortune to use. But that is no fault of electron. Slack was built with electron and it's night and day difference to Teams.
> I gather most people are just using the apps and have no idea how they’re built.
Because people who develop these only care about one thing: ease of development. They couldn't care less about what users say, and if they cared they wouldn't understand users, because users don't use terms like "latency", or "startup time", or "lag".
Do you have any idea of the software development cost? You may care about your users all you want, maintaining web app and its desktop native counterparts (would you like distinct windows/linux/macos versions?) may be completely unaffordable.
They may not why they’re slow, buggy and not platform integrated, but they certainly know. I just watched this as my employer switched to Slack. Thousands of non-IT professionals have many (valid) criticisms about the client hogging memory and generally being awful. Sadly most of the other options are worse, and also electron slop.
> That basically already exists on the desktop in the form of Electron apps. Those apps are universally hated because of it.
I hate a few apps on desktop because they're web apps. Because those specific apps should _not_ be webapps. Other webapps I hate on the desktop _because they use electron_ and maintain yet another browser engine running constantly on my PC--not because they choose to write their UI in HTML and CSS. I don't need 15 browsers running on my computer. Give me a native stub for the taskbar and whatever other functionality is needed, and if you _must_ use HTML then render it in whatever browser I feel like opening the app in. I've got several programs that do this, and they're the best of the bunch (Intel driver assistant, cfosspeed) as they don't have an entire chrome process stack running all the time just in case you maybe want to open their interface (I almost never do).
> If you say that [PWAs] lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights
How does that follow?
More generally, do you have any sources for your repeated claims of intentional sabotage? You make accusations of ignoring evidence but you have provided none - unless you're saying that apple has already poisoned the well and anything they do is suspect.
All of your questions have already been answered above, but you clearly didn't have much interest in reading it. I will still elaborate more so you don't even have the chance to delude yourself into thinking that you have any point whatsoever.
Apple has a 10/10 vested interest in the kneecapping of PWAs - why?
A Progressive Web App, if allowed to reach its full, un-sabotaged potential, is the technological manifestation of the Digital Markets Act's goals. So it would be utterly absurd for Apple to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting the DMA, just to let PWAs pass which achieves the exact same goals.
Many of the DMA's mandates are an existential threat to Apple's business model and the PWA is the DMA in disguise:
- DMA mandates Apple to allow alternative App Stores & sideloading i.e. Force Apple to end its monopoly on app distribution. PWAs are sideloading by nature. A user "installs" a PWA directly from the web. The browser is the app store. The open web is the distribution platform. This completely bypasses the App Store.
- DMA mandates Apple to allow alternative payment systems. Forcing Apple to let developers use their own payment processors and avoid the 15-30% commission. PWAs use Open Web payments. It can use Stripe, PayPal, or any other payment processor with standard web APIs. Apple gets a 0% cut.
- DMA mandates Apple to increase Developer & User Choice. Give developers the freedom to choose their tools and give users the freedom to choose their apps without being locked in.
PWAs are the epitome of choice. They are built with the most universal, open technologies on earth (HTML, CSS, JS). They are cross-platform by default and free users from being locked into a single company's hardware/software ecosystem.
Why would Apple have ANY interest in nurturing a technology that would voluntarily subject them to the very conditions they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and legal fees to fight against?
The answer is: They wouldn't and they don't.
Apple's actions are not those of a company with simply "low interest". They are the actions of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense. The brief, hostile removal of PWA functionality in the EU was not an outlier, it was Apple showing its true face when it thought it could get away with it.
> This statement alone is evidence that you didn't understand the crux of the issue.
I do
> You are also confusing cause and effect.
I don't
> I clearly explained the root causes for that.
You didn't. You went on a rant about "public perception" and your own experience building mobile web sites.
> If you say that it's because they lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights.
See. Again with the rant.
> Be specific, why are they not "good"?
E.g. Reddit's mobile web site loads every post in 3+ seconds. And reloads the full page when you click on a subtree in the comments.
When you scroll through Twitter, it will just randomly load a bunch of stuff and replace your content losing your scroll position. Same with going back from a tweet to the timeline.
Most websites take multiple seconds to display text-only information with broken layouts, layout shifts, and multiple loading states.
Features HN developers think are missing from the web to deliver an experience "as polished as a native app": notifications, prompt banners, link interception, Chrome-only non-standards like bluetooth etc.
Features actual users think are missing from the web to deliver an experience "as polished as a native app": actual native-like experience: responsiveness, smooth animations, polished usable and accesible controls, maintaining scroll position and location in the app, fast scrolling through large lists, no loading states for the simplest actions...
I mean, people people keep bringing up Twitter's objectively bad web app as an example of one of the best PWA apps... Have these people never seen an actual native app?
--- end quote ---
> There wouldn't be coincidentally a mysterious opposing force that actively prevents developers from improving those aspects, right?
There is no such entity. Besides, Google invested hundreds of millions of dollars into PWAs, and there are still so few that people can point to even on Android.
We have really complex web applications like Photopea.
They work fine performance-wise. The example of Reddit’s website being shit is just pointing out that Reddit’s website is shit.
Google maps web applications also works really well. Both Photopea and Google Maps are far more complex than reddit.
At this point I am sure reddit’s website is shit so people are forced to use their app so they can track users better. Not because of some underlying limitation of web technologies.
ht>> I clearly explained the root causes for that.
>You didn't. You went on a rant about "public perception" and your own experience building mobile web sites.
I have no time to engage in your shallow kind of tit for tat, where I do all of the work and you simply respond with infantile one word responses with zero elaboration or outright denial, misrepresentation or just repetition of already debunked narratives. I will still briefly debunk the parts where you put in at least some minor effort of trying to substantiate.
>> Be specific, why are they not "good"?
> E.g. Reddit's mobile web site loads every post in 3+ seconds. And reloads the full page when you click on a subtree in the comments. When you scroll through Twitter, it will just randomly load a bunch of stuff and replace your content losing your scroll position. Same with going back from a tweet to the timeline. Most websites take multiple seconds to display text-only information with broken layouts, layout shifts, and multiple loading states.
Those are some specific apps that have bad implementations, not an inherent limitation of the technology, so it's irrelevant to the bigger picture. I asked you for the specific technology. That's like me saying "Give me a specific reason why electric cars will never be a viable technology as you claimed" then you respond with "This specific brand has an electric car with this specific issue". It's such a transparent strategy of deliberately missing the point.
> --- start quote ---
Features HN developers think are missing from the web to deliver an experience ...
--- end quote ---
All of those are issues that have already been fixed, so I don't get why you would bring up your severely outdated comment. It also contains aspects for which I clearly explained why and who is to blame for those.
>There is no such entity. Besides, Google invested hundreds of millions of dollars into PWAs, and there are still so few that people can point to even on Android.
I already responded to this in many different comments:
"Google is the primary champion of PWAs, they have a vested interest in its success. The reason I focused on Apple is because its actions are one of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat that is PWA. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense of its walled garden that makes maximum taxation possible."
> Apps have to update to use new APIs that are cleaner (under threat of being removed…)
WhatsApp on iOS is still not using the private photo picker* that iOS 14 introduced, and they haven’t been booted off the App Store yet.
*So that you don’t have to share your entire photo library with Meta if you want to share a photo via WhatsApp.
It’s just one example, but I suspect ubiquitous apps like WhatsApp (super popular in many geographies) might see lighter-touch enforcement. The point is that App Store governance isn’t as straightforward as one would think.
Also, websites can drop support for certain browsers, use feature detection and progressive enhancement. There’s no reason for a website to get jankier over time if web devs do their job right.
so to be clear, you are suggest we move to a closed internet, where Apple (who just lost in court due to unfair monopoly practices), not only gate keeps everything, but we have to pay them for the privilege?
> The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features
But they're not real apps, they're webpages. They are two different things, both very useful, but both very different.
It's a very good thing for a user to be aware that there's a real and important difference between a signed binary from the App Store which lives on their device and a blob of minified JS coming down from quite literally anywhere.
And they're correct to feel that way! Apps, when made correctly, feel way better to use! It's a bit surprising to me you attribute this preference for ""native"" apps to "whatever reason". I've always felt the difference was extremely stark and obvious, I couldn't imagine getting them confused. It seems you're a little misinformed with how most native apps are built; it's just not true that any meaningful number of apps you interact with regularly with "simply wrap their web app in a WebView." In fact, if you try to ship an app which does solely this (webpage in a WebView), Apple will reject it. Have you built any mobile apps, kelthuzad?
I encourage you to try Google Docs or Youtube from a mobile browser and observe whether you find differences between that and the native experience. I think you'll be surprised :)
This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store.
The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features. They have been dragged down by the subtle artificial friction that makes the UX feel subpar.
This reminds me of my own experience of mobile websites when they first emerged. I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version". Then I learned about responsive web design and it clicked for me. I predict that a similar epiphany will occur among casuals once the active sabotage of web apps stops due to regulations reigning in the anti-competitive business practices of gatekeepers.
I'm sure that some people will still prefer "native" apps for whatever reason. However, if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field, then a lay person wouldn't even be able to differentiate between them. This is even the case today where some developers simply wrap their web app in a WebView and ship it as a "native" app.